I've read much of this book and I'd like to know why its not in the Bible. I personally see no problem with it (although my opinion is fallible in nature) and consider it very informative about the time of Enoch, just before the flood accounted in the book of Noah...

If you look deeper into the subject, you will find that it is of relatively recent authorship, 300 BC to 1AD. It seems to have a Gnostic flavor: the LDS have studied it extensively, and seem to reverence it.

[quote="Wandile, post:1, topic:279532"]
I've read much of this book and I'd like to know why its not in the Bible. I personally see no problem with it (although my opinion is fallible in nature) and consider it very informative about the time of Enoch, just before the flood accounted in the book of Noah...

Any idea as to why the book of Enoch is not in the Bible ?:confused:

[/quote]

I don't see any problem with Clement's letter to the Corinthians either. Can't really tell a difference between it and one of Paul's letters. The problem is that the Catholic Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, did not choose it as part of the canon of Sacred Scripture and we must trust in the authority of the Church to make this determination. There is a difference between writings that are informative, or even beauthiful and truthful, and those that are inspired.

Even if there is no problem with some writing, it's not a reason to make it part of the Bible. There are many ancient early Christian writings that are of great value, but still are not considered to be part of the inspired Scripture. Like letters of Clement to Corinthians.
They are not bad or wrong or without any value, it's just the Church decided this is not inspired, infallible Scripture.

[quote="Jerusha, post:3, topic:279532"]
If you look deeper into the subject, you will find that it is of relatively recent authorship, 300 BC to 1AD. It seems to have a Gnostic flavor: the LDS have studied it extensively, and seem to reverence it.

[/quote]

Yeah I know its young date, but I think Paul even quoted the book when referencing the prophecy that Enoch made... The prophecy is directly from the Book of Enoch.

Now I'm not saying that quotations = inspired scripture... But this is a case of Paul confirming a piece of the Book of Enoch...

Yeah I know the Ethiopian Church includes the Book of enoch in their canon… Do you know what their reasoning is for including it in their canon?

The same reason that every Eastern Church includes the 151st psalm, most include 3 Maccabees,but the Ethiopian Church doesn’t include 1 and 2 Maccabees.

It is part of the text received in their church since the beginning. Each of the earlier ecumenical councils that affirmed the canon was brought back to the participating churches (including the Ethiopians) as affirming the particular canon that church received. Trent was the first council that came up with an exhaustive list of books and it was largely a Western council.

I’ve read much of this book and I’d like to know why its not in the Bible. I personally see no problem with it (although my opinion is fallible in nature) and consider it very informative about the time of Enoch, just before the flood accounted in the book of Noah…

Any idea as to why the book of Enoch is not in the Bible ?

The Early Church Fathers already established the Holy Bible. They did this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is set in stone for all time. And the book of Enoch seems to contradict what the rest of the Biblical Canon is saying. In the Book of Enoch the Nephilim are Angel/Human half breeds. This does not coincide with what Jesus says about the nature of Angels and what Moses says about Kinds. There may be another way to look at it but regardless what the early councils of the Church concluded is good with me. If I can’t trust them on the canon of scripture, what can I trust them on?

As far as the Ethiopian Orthodox including it in their canon, it is fine. The Orthodox have always considered the extra books to be deutercanon. This places them on a secondary level below the 66 canonical books of the Bible.

[quote="SonCatcher, post:8, topic:279532"]
The same reason that every Eastern Church includes the 151st psalm, most include 3 Maccabees,but the Ethiopian Church doesn't include 1 and 2 Maccabees.

It is part of the text received in their church since the beginning. Each of the earlier ecumenical councils that affirmed the canon was brought back to the participating churches (including the Ethiopians) as affirming the particular canon that church received. Trent was the first council that came up with an exhaustive list of books and it was largely a Western council.

[/quote]

It was also in answer to the Protestant schism and its denial of the divine authority of the deuterocanonicals. Trent did not actually close the canon ie declaring the Orthodox books as not inspired, rather it simply defined the deuterocanonicals as inspired scripture. :)

And the book of Enoch seems to contradict what the rest of the Biblical Canon is saying. In the Book of Enoch the Nephilim are Angel/Human half breeds. This does not coincide with what Jesus says about the nature of Angels and what Moses says about Kinds.

Genesis 6:4 says Nephilim existedGenesis 6:4 NIV The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown.

I learned as a protestant that the Angels were called “sons of God” somtimes in the old testament (though maybe diffrent protestants believe otherwise). I am not saying that this means the book of Enoch should be in the bible, but doesnt Genesis 6:4 say that half Angel/Humans existed atleast in the past?

Genesis 6:4 says Nephilim existedGenesis 6:4 NIV The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heros of old, men of renown.

I learned as a protestant that the Angels were called “sons of God” somtimes in the old testament (though maybe diffrent protestants believe otherwise). I am not saying that this means the book of Enoch should be in the bible, but doesnt Genesis 6:4 say that half Angel/Humans existed atleast in the past?

In the book of Job “Sons of God” translates to Angels but again this does not imply that the “sons of God” in Genesis translates to Angels. It is most probably referring to the descendants of Seth looking upon the daughters of Cain. The Nephilim were likely a society of taller people. To conclude otherwise runs contrary to what Jesus said about the nature of Angels and what Moses said about Kinds. This is one of the reasons the fathers excluded the Book of Enoch. I have to believe that the Early Church Fathers who were the Bishops who took over the Church after the Apostles died have a better understanding than what we do. Protestants (and I understand that Rome would consider me one) are opening doors that the Church has closed for all time. The book of Enoch has already been rejected. There is no need to speculate on that which God has ordained.

There may be another way of viewing it. Some say that the “sons of God” were spirit beings. Others think they were the righteous people living at that time, who fell into sin, intermarried with the heathen, and whose offspring then departed from the way of the Lord. Throughout history, pagan kings have often staked claim upon their thrones based upon claims that they are descended from such creatures.

Whichever they were, their offspring were the Nephilim (the Fallen Ones). Evidently, men often revered them as heroes but God viewed them as spiritually unjust. Their heirs (spiritually and by size, if not biologically) are seen even to the time of the Exodus (cf. Numbers 13:31-33). They were of giant stature and seemingly possessed great might in battle. Of the latter Nephilim, Goliath may have been a final vestige.

[quote="JPeter, post:14, topic:279532"]
In the book of Job "Sons of God" translates to Angels but again this does not imply that the "sons of God" in Genesis translates to Angels. It is most probably referring to the descendants of Seth looking upon the daughters of Cain. The Nephilim were likely a society of taller people. To conclude otherwise runs contrary to what Jesus said about the nature of Angels and what Moses said about Kinds. This is one of the reasons the fathers excluded the Book of Enoch. I have to believe that the Early Church Fathers who were the Bishops who took over the Church after the Apostles died have a better understanding than what we do.

[/quote]

I think I know what scripture you are refering to when you say to conclude the Nephilim were half angel half human is contrary to what Jesus said about the nature of angels. I actully never thought of that. But what did Moses say about kinds? That I dont know.

I think I know what scripture you are refering to when you say to conclude the Nephilim were half angel half human is contrary to what Jesus said about the nature of angels. I actully never thought of that. But what did Moses say about kinds? That I dont know.

Though Moses observed that selective breeding changes animals (Gen. 30:40-41), He also observed that creatures breed only with members of their own kind (Gen. 2:18-24). Each kind of life reproduces itself (Gen.1:11-12) without developing into other kinds of life. “Kind” as Moses used it is far broader than the modern biological term “species,” since the modern term often describes unique breeds of creatures. For Moses, the “kinds” that entered the ark are breeding pairs from which all present varieties have descended.

Though Moses observed that selective breeding changes animals (Gen. 30:40-41), He also observed that creatures breed only with members of their own kind (Gen. 2:18-24). Each kind of life reproduces itself (Gen.1:11-12) without developing into other kinds of life. “Kind” as Moses used it is far broader than the modern biological term “species,” since the modern term often describes unique breeds of creatures. For Moses, the “kinds” that entered the ark are breeding pairs from which all present varieties have descended.

Angels and humans are more than a different species. They are totally different “kinds”.

[quote="JPeter, post:18, topic:279532"]
Angels and humans are more than a different species. They are totally different "kinds".

[/quote]

So we need further explanation of

In the book of Job "Sons of God" translates to Angels but again this does not imply that the "sons of God" in Genesis translates to Angels. It is most probably referring to the descendants of Seth looking upon the daughters of Cain. The Nephilim were likely a society of taller people.

for complete clarification that humans and angels are much different than each other, particularly in that angels do not have bodies.

So we need further explanation of
for complete clarification that humans and angels are much different than each other, particularly in that angels do not have bodies.

This is interesting, I’m going through the Orthodox study Bible and they leave the notes under Genesis 6:2 and 4 blank. This is likely intentional as the Orthodox do not like to be over defined. They probably don’t want to dot the i or cross the t. In this way they are much like Anglicans. I know for a fact that the Roman Catholics do not believe the Nephilim were Angel/human half breeds although I do not own a Roman Catholic study Bible. I am looking at samples of the Lutheran study Bible online. For Genesis 6 verses 2 and 4.

Genesis 6:2 Sons of God = Godly believers, Sethites, from whom the promised messiah would come (Gen. 3:15). Some interpreters have considered the “Sons of God” angels, based on the expression in Job 38:7. However, such a conclusion directly contradicts Jesus’ teaching about the nature of angels (Mt. 22:30) and Moses teaching about “kinds”. Daughters of Man = Godless unbelievers, Cainites.

Genesis 6:4 Nephilim = thugs and tyrants. The first nobility in the world were a group of tyrants, but admired nonetheless. They were sinners ripe for judgement in Gods eyes.

The Lutherans make a good point and I think the Roman Catholic Church would agree with their conclusion.